Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v.

Karlen - 444
U.S. 223, 100 S. Ct. 497 (1980)

RULE:

42 U.S.C.S. § 4321, while establishing significant substantive goals for the nation, imposes upon agencies
duties that are "essentially procedural." The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is designed to
insure a fully informed and well-considered decision, but not necessarily a decision the judges of the
court of appeals or the United States Supreme Court would have reached had they been members of the
decision-making unit of the agency.

FACTS:

A New York city planning Commission, in conjunction with the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), formulated an urban renewal plan which called for a mix of middle-income
and low-income housing and designated a particular site for middle-income housing. After several
amendments, which included changing it to a site for low-income housing with the approval of HUD , the
Commission submitted the plan. An action was brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to enjoin the Commission and HUD from constructing low-income
housing on the site, but the District Court declined to grant the injunction. On the first appeal, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded the case on the ground that HUD had not
complied with the requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that an agency "study,
develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which
involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." HUD prepared a
lengthy report on remand that supported the construction of low-income housing on the site, considered
and rejected alternative sites, and concluded that any relocation of the project would entail an
unacceptable delay. The District Court supported HUD's analysis, but on appeal the Court of Appeals
vacated and remanded again, concluding that the delay created by selecting an alternate site could not be
"an overriding factor" in HUD's decision, and that HUD had to give "determinative weight" to
environmental considerations in reaching its decision. The United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari.

ISSUE:

Is the judgment of the appellate court to reject the environmental impact statement of petitioners proper?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

The United States Supreme Court reversed, concluding that held once HUD had made a decision subject
to the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.S. 421 et seq.,
the only role for the court of appeals was to insure that the environmental consequences had been
considered. The court found that there was no doubt that HUD had considered the environmental
consequences of its decision.